EVOLUTION EXPOSED! OPPOSING SCIENCE AND SCRIPTURE A ... · x Although Lamarck's theories were later...
Transcript of EVOLUTION EXPOSED! OPPOSING SCIENCE AND SCRIPTURE A ... · x Although Lamarck's theories were later...
EVOLUTION EXPOSED! OPPOSING SCIENCE AND SCRIPTURE
A Research Paper
Presented to
The Faculty of the English Department
Tabernacle Baptist Bible College
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Bachelor of Theology
by
Jacqueline Melissa Powell May 1994
2
When Charles Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859, he broke the
final barrier holding the disciplines of science to the framework of the Bible. The
theory of biological evolution originally proposed by Darwin has, in this century, been
developed into a theory governing the origins of the universe. Its roots are in three
major disciplines of science: biology, geology and astronomy. Evolution theory
proposes a universe that either created itself or has eternally existed and that
continues to change itself into a more complex system of processes. The physical
laws observed in operation today are assumed to have always been in operation.
The Laws of Thermodynamics, however, govern all processes that operate in the
universe and the Second Law specifically forbids advancement in organization of
any natural process. Most importantly, the Bible clearly teaches that God created
the universe and all it contains: "By the word of the LORD were the heavens made;
and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth."i The theory of evolution is
diametrically opposed to both the laws of science and the teachings of the
Scriptures.
Evolution in Biology
The erosion of the Biblical basis of science paved the way for an
acceptance of evolution based theories. New theories being developed in many
other disciplines of science, mainly physics, astronomy and particularly geology, had
3 carved inroads into traditional thinking thus preparing the scientific world for
Darwin's theory of evolution.ii During the Middle Ages, the Universe was viewed as
being centered on man and directed by God. In the 19th Century, Copernicus
transformed scientific thinking by proving the earth was not the center of the
universe.
Physical events were governed by natural laws, and although God
was still recognized as the author of laws, his personal intervention
was no longer required to explain how things were made. The
emphasis slowly shifted from the supernatural to the natural. From
the miraculous to the mundane. And although the cosmos was still
regarded as something which had been created, it was also seen as a
developing process subject to scientific laws.iii
England's intellectuals, scientists, manufacturers, inventors, etc., soon began to
reject the Christian framework of thought that established science had rested on.
They thought of nature as a manageable process governed by discoverable laws
instead of the supernatural; the theological significance of the natural world was
discarded.iv This type of thinking proved fertile ground for Darwin's theory of
evolution.
Charles Darwin revolutionized scientific thought when he published his Origin
4 of Species, but he did not do so single handedly; the idea of biological descent
through modifications in the species, evolution, had been postulated by a number of
scientists during the century prior to his work.v The French naturalist George Buffon
published his book, Theory of the Earth, in 1749 in which he rejected the accepted
practice of basing natural history on the interpretation of the Scripture.vi Almost 30
years later he published another work, Epochs of Nature, in which he developed the
idea of "gradual change by observable causes"vii and tried to determine the
chronological order of the appearance of species. Due to the immense popularity
of his books throughout Europe, he was an important figure in the promotion of the
doctrine of descent with modification.viii The doctrine of descent through
modification was an affront to the well established idea of the fixity of species.
French naturalist and professor of Zoology in Paris, Chevalier de Lamarck,
continued the "attacks on the doctrine of fixity of species."ix He published his theory
in 1801 claiming "it is the habit that has shaped the organism. A duck was not made
web-footed to enable it to swim, but it became web-footed because new wants
attracted it to the water."x Although Lamarck's theories were later rejected, their
early influence upon Darwin was never completely reversed.
The man who most influenced Darwin was the great pioneer geologist
George Lyell. Lyell built on the earlier ideas of Scottish geologist James Hutton who
"maintained that the present is the key to the past and that, given sufficient time,
5 processes now at work could account for all the geologic features of the Globe."xi
Lyell published his Principles of Geology in 1830. In it he attempted "to provide for
geology a comprehensive theory to account for all possible past and present
geological changes"xii and to show
that the forces working to transform the surface of the earth in the past were the same as those that could be seen in operation at present, and that these forces were ordinary, regular, orderly, and lawlike. Lyell eschewed the supernatural or spiritual origin of geological processes.xiii
Laporte sums us Lyell's influence upon Darwin's theory by stating, "Lyell's geology
emphasized the antiquity of the earth, giving the essential element of time so
necessary to the Darwinian concept of evolution by small, incremental change."xiv
The ideas of modification with descent was firmly in place in the scientific
world by the early 1800's but it took Charles Darwin's treatise, On the Origin of
Species, to fully develop the theory and make it acceptable. "Charles Darwin's
quintessential contribution to evolutionary theory, therefore, is not the idea of
evolution, but rather his statement of the mechanism by which animal and plant
species change into other distinct species."xv The views of Darwin's predecessors,
although popular during their day, were only theories, not scientific facts. There was
no empirical data to substantiate them, yet they were a major influence upon the
young Darwin who signed aboard the H.M.S. Beagle in December of 1832 for a five
year voyage of research and exploration around the world. During this voyage,
6 Darwin collected animal and plant specimens and filled notebooks with observations
of everything from tropical fauna to geological strata. He would later use these
observations to formulate his theory of natural selection.
Darwin did not set out to hypothesize a theory of evolution but rather he
"started out to discover the origin of species."xvi He soon "became convinced that it
was impossible to bound, or discover, the loci of species"xvii and unable to find their
beginning, he formed "a theory of continual minute variations winnowed by natural
selection."xviii It has been acknowledged by scientists that Darwin lacked a complete
"understanding of the nature of species"xix and considered the term species "as one
arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely
resembling each other."xx Today the origin of species still remains "one of the
cardinal problems in the field of evolution."xxi The correct definition of a species will
be a major step toward solving this problem.
The species is considered "the cardinal unit in the process of evolution"xxii and
must be correctly defined to understand evolution. Unlike Darwin, evolutionists
today realize that a species is "not just a matter of judgement but has a quite definite
objective reality; it is a category which is not simply a convenience in
classification."xxiii Geneticist and leading neo-Darwinian Theodosius Dobzhansky
defined a species as being a group of individuals who shared a common gene pool
of hereditary traits, produced fertile offspring when crossed with each other and
7 most importantly, are separated and protected from other species by a reproductive
gap.xxiv The reproductive gap constraint is echoed by taxonomist and foremost
evolutionist Ernest Mayr as he claims "species [biological] are groups of
interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such
groups."xxv The reproductive gap between species limits the number of variations
that can result in a cross. Limited variation coupled with a common gene pool
suggest stability in the species. Every member of a species shares certain common
traits with all other members of the species which uniquely identifies the species.
Variations within individual members of the species will not change these common
traits.
How do the evolutionists' definition of a species compare to the Genesis
kinds of Scripture? Dr. Henry Morris, leading creationist author and teacher, says
It is significant that the phrase "after his kind" occurs ten times in the first chapter of Genesis. Whatever precisely is meant by the term "kind" (Hebrew min), it does indicate the limitations of variation. Each organism was to reproduce after its own kind, not after some other kind.xxvi
Dr. Frank L. Marsh, biologist and foremost creationist, believes "if organisms cross
they are members of a single Genesis kind, I looked for a name for the created
unit"xxvii and "finally I suggested (1941) the name baramin from the Hebrew roots,
bara, created, and min, kind."xxviii A true cross produces hybrid offspring: offspring
are hybrid when they inherit traits from both parents. This is an important
8 requirement because offspring may be produced which takes all their hereditary
traits from the female's side. These are not true hybrids and hence not true crosses
between Genesis kinds.xxix The baramin must be able to cross and produce hybrid,
fertile offspring.
The biological species definition brings evolutionist thinking closer to the idea
of the Genesis kind. However, the reproductive-only constraint can be used to
name new species of individuals that morphologically are the same. The classic
example involves Dobzhansky's work with the vinegar fly. He crossed two races
which produced semi-sterile daughters and completely sterile sons. Based on the
biological definition of a species, the vinegar fly's offspring were a new species since
the sterile sons exhibited a "reproductive gap". Thus, the experiment is considered
a proof of evolution.xxx Marsh observes that "although these groups are practically
indistinguishable morphologically, they behave as good species biologically."xxxi
How do the biological species and the baramin relate to each other? Dr.
Marsh sums up the differences nicely as follows: "The biological species to the
evolutionist is first and last physiological, while the created kind of the creationist is
commonly first morphological but lastly and more decisively physiological."xxxii The
physiological species is synonymous with the biological species definition and
consists of individuals which can cross and produce fertile offspring while the
morphological species is based entirely on form, structure and coloration without
9 regard to crossability. According to Dr. Marsh, the difference between the baramin
and the biological species is the morphological constraint. Evolutionists consider
morphological changes as variations of the species while creationists think of them
as natural attributes of the species. Since variations are a necessary ingredient for
evolution, understanding the role of the morphological changes is imperative.
Darwin's treatise on the origin of species by natural selection, the theory of
evolution, presents the idea of variations between individuals of a species as giving
rise to a new and advanced species over time. This process of new species arising
from previously existing ones is called speciation. Darwin based his theory on the
assumption that variations would easily arise among individuals of a species. This
view is confirmed by Mayr who declared speciation was based "on the assumption
that through the gradual accumulation of mutational steps a threshold is finally
crossed which signifies the evolution of a new species."xxxiii Even geographic
speciation, which "is characterized by the gradual building up of biological isolating
mechanisms"xxxiv is said to have as a secondary factor "the gradual accumulation of
genetic differences."xxxv In order for the species to advance, at least some of the
variations must be good for the individual member of the species. Thus, freely
occurring variations that increase the organizational complexity of the species are a
primary assumption of the theory of evolution.
Dobzhansky states "the ultimate source of organic diversity is mutation."xxxvi
10 A mutation is a change in the structure of a DNA molecule, a gene, in the
reproductive cells of the individual. Dobzhansky calls mutations "the building blocks,
the raw materials,"xxxvii of evolutionary changes. To him mutations were "the
ultimate source of evolution."xxxviii The evolution model depends on some natural
mechanism to produce upward progress in complexity and the mutation is that
mechanism.xxxix If mutations are really the "building blocks" of evolution they would
be expected to be primarily beneficial and able to produce an upward or vertical
change toward a higher degree of order. Observations of the natural world,
however, do not bear out this theory.
Biological systems preserve their identity from generation to generation
through the operation of the laws of inheritance. Much has been learned about
heredity through observation of living systems. Gregor Mendel, the Austrian monk
and horticulturalist, did many experiments with peas in the later half of the 1800's
that determined the basic laws of inheritance. Through experimentation, he
determined there was a clear distinction between the appearance of an individual
(its phenotype) and its genetic composition (its genotype). He also revealed that
inherited qualities are not a blend of those of the parents' genetic traits. Instead,
genetic traits are paired as dominant and recessive. Only the dominant traits will be
manifest in the offspring's phenotype. The recessive traits, however, are retained in
the offspring's genotype and can be passed on to their future offspring.xl Mendel's
11 Theory of Particulate Inheritance states that the qualities in the offspring is the result
of some "factor" in the parents. These "factors" are now known as genes.xli
Mendel's Laws of Inheritance insure conservation of variations. Even
Dobzhansky admits that "heredity is a conservative force: the genes function as
templates for the production of their exact copies; by making the offspring resemble
their parents, heredity confers stability upon biological systems.xlii As shown
already, "mutations are caused by alterations within genetic materials."xliii An
alteration would deviate from the exact copies that the laws of inheritance enforce,
therefore a mutation only occurs in opposition to a well established law of science.
From the Genesis account of creation, conclusions can be drawn supporting a divine
institution of these laws of inheritance. As stated earlier the phrase "after his kind"
occurs ten times in Genesis chapter one. Dr. Morris summarizes by saying the
"DNA molecule and the genetic code contained in it has reinforced the Biblical
teaching of the stability of kinds."xliv
The net effect of all mutations is harmful because they counteract the
stabilizing effect of the laws of inheritance. The laws of inheritance act to preserve
the genetic code from one generation to the next. Any mechanism, whether natural
or artificial, that distorts this genetic code is harmful to the individual and to the
species. Dobzhansky says "mutations are accidents, because the transmission of
hereditary information normally involves precise copying. A mutant gene is, then, an
12 imperfect copy of the ancestral gene."xlv Dobzhansky admits that "mutations alone,
uncontrolled by natural selection, would result in the breakdown and eventual
extinction of life."xlvi
Mutations are the key ingredient in evolutionary thought because they provide
a means to attain the variations necessary for species to make vertical progress in
organization. While readily admitting the harmfulness of mutations, evolutionists still
believe Darwin's theory of natural selection will advance a species, via mutations,
rather than degenerate it.
To evolutionists, mutations are the engine of evolution and natural selection is
the steering wheel. Darwin developed the theory of Natural Selection in the years
following his stint aboard the H.M.S. Beagle. In defining it he says, "this
preservation of favorable individual differences and variations, and the destruction of
those which are injurious, I have called Natural Selection, or the Survival of the
Fittest."xlvii Darwin contends that
The ultimate result is that each creature tends to become more and more improved in relation to its conditions. This improvement inevitably leads to the gradual advancement of the organisation of the greater number of living beings throughout the world.xlviii
The theory of natural selection rests on the basic assumption of a struggle for
existence between living things. Darwin developed this integral part of the theory
after reading a treatise on population growth by the English economist Thomas
13 Malthus. Malthus believed population increased faster than food supplies thus
producing a struggle for the food supplies among living things.xlix The struggle for
existence ensures only a limited number of living things survive. Natural selection
acts as a sieve through which all mutations must pass and only those that promote
the upward progress of the individual are allowed to filter through. The ability to
adapt to a changing environment and obtain necessary food is the filtering-factor.
Those individuals which adapt survive and pass their newly acquired traits on to
their offspring while those individuals which are unable to adapt die and produce no
offspring. Only the most fit survive thus guaranteeing vertical progress in
organization. Evolutionists do not all agree on the ability of natural selection to
direct progress. Even Darwin's most staunch supporter, Sir Julian Huxley, believed
that "natural selection does not guarantee progress."l Going even farther in his
critique of natural selection, modern day evolutionist J.B.S. Haldane declares that
"most evolutionary change has been degenerate."li
Darwin's theory of natural selection contradicts clearly established scientific
laws. To re-emphasize, Darwin believed the ultimate result of natural selection was
an improvement of the individual and an overall advancement of the species.lii This
implies that evolution requires an advancement of order. Many biologists believe in
this "inherent tendency towards higher organization,"liii but advancement in order is
just the opposite from what is observed in the natural world. The two basic laws of
14 science, the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, describe all processes
which occur in the universe. These laws are experimentally tested and proven and
are not based on speculation.
The Second Law (Law of Energy Decay) states that every system left to its own devices always tends to move from order to disorder, its energy tending to be transformed into lower levels of availability, finally reaching the state of complete randomness and unavailability for further work.liv
With the Second Law as the governing agent, two criteria must be met for a change
from disorder to order to occur: 1) there must be a pattern, blueprint or code to direct
the growth and, 2) there must be a power converter to energize the growth.lv
"Natural selection is not a code which directs the production of anything new; it
serves merely as a screen which sifts out unfit variants and defective mutants. It
certainly is not an energy conversion device."lvi To propose a theory of naturally
occurring advancement in organization in a universe governed by a law of naturally
occurring disorder is a serious flaw in logic. The laws of science preclude natural
selection, as defined by Darwin, from ever having occurred.
Not only is Darwin's theory of evolution scientifically incorrect, but more
importantly, it is opposed to the teachings of the Scriptures. Evolution teaches living
things came into being via naturally occurring processes. The Bible teaches the
earth and all living things were created supernaturally by God.lvii Genesis 1:1 is the
foundation for the entire Bible: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the
15 earth." The existence of God is never proved in the Scriptures.lviii God simply says
"I AM THAT I AM."lix The Psalmist later reflects that only a fool could say "there is
no God."lx The name of God used in this verse is the Hebrew Elohim; it is the name
of God the Creator and is uni-plural suggesting the Godhead. The word "created"
(Hebrew, bara) means to "call into existence that which had no existence."lxi The
writer of Hebrews beautifully declares that "the worlds were framed by the word of
God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."lxii
Evolution depicts man as a conqueror having won out in the struggle for existence.
The Bible teaches man was created in the image of God Himself: "God created man
in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he
them."lxiii Evolution teaches death is just part of the struggle for existence, but the
Bible plainly shows death was not part of the original creation; there was no death
until Adam sinned.lxiv Death was the penalty God placed on Adam for his
disobedience.lxv
Evolution in Geology
Darwin pointed to the fossil record as evidencing his theory of natural
selection. In his Origin of Species, he states "if my theory be true, numberless
intermediat varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must
assuredly have existed"lxvi and that the "evidence of their former existence could be
found only amongst fossil remains."lxvii David Clark, evolutionist writer, explains that
"in 1859, Darwin published his theory of organic evolution and it was recognized that
fossils were the primary evidence for this theory."lxviii Darwin pushed aside the long
16 accepted view that the fossil record was produced by the Genesis flood of Noah's
day. The Bible based explanation for fossils "limited the explanation for their
existence to a single catastrophic event in history."lxix Darwin, however, had
completely embraced Lyell's uniformitarian view of the earth's past which left no
room for geologic catastrophes.
George Lyell's theory of uniformitarianism presents the idea that the earth's
processes have always operated at a constant or uniform rate. Lyell built his theory
of uniformitarianism on the work of Scottish geologist James Hutton. Dr. Morris, in
quoting Carl Dunbar's standard textbook on geology, Historical Geology, explains
Hutton's views:
The uprooting of such fantastic beliefs [that is, those of the catastrophists] began with the Scottish geologist, James Hutton, whose Theory of the Earth, published in 1785, maintained that the present is the key to the past, and that, given sufficient time, processes now at work could account for all the geologic features of the Globe. This philosophy, which came to be known as the doctrine of uniformitarianism demands an immensity of time; it has now gained universal acceptance among intelligent and informed people.lxx
Until Hutton's time, geology had been based on a catastrophic framework. The
Biblical flood of Noah was accepted as true and the features of the earth's surface
were attributed to the actions of the great flood. Lyell's firm view of uniform process
rates precluded any geological formations resulting from catastrophic processes.
He rejected completely the Biblical account of the flood:
Never was there a dogma more calculated to foster indolence, and to blunt the keen edge of curiosity, than this assumption of the discordance between the ancient and existing causes of change. It produced a state of mind unfavorable in the highest degree to the candid reception of the evidence of those minute but incessant
17
alterations which every part of the earth's surface is undergoing, and by which the condition of its living inhabitants is continually made to vary. For this reason all theories are rejected which involve the assumption of sudden and violent catastrophes and revolutions of the whole earth, and its inhabitants.lxxi
Lyell attributed the features of the earth to the "minute but incessant alterations"lxxii
that it has undergone instead of to a single catastrophe such as the Genesis flood.
The theory of uniformitarianism is an antipodal view of the earth's processes
as described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The laws of thermodynamics
have been experimentally proven true but there are "no scientific basis for assuming
such uniformity of process rates."lxxiii Some evolutionists even realize the problem
with uniformitarianism as Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, influential paleontologist, admits
"substantive uniformitarianism (a testable theory of geologic change postulating
uniformity of rates or material conditions) is false and stifling to hypothesis
formation."lxxiv Dr. Harold Slusher, creationist research scientist, gives insight to the
false assumption underlying uniformitarianism:
The second law of thermodynamics says that all natural processes are deteriorative or degenerative. Natural processes are changing the universe in a way similar to the unwinding of a clock spring that loses organization by the ticking of the clock . . . It is not possible to work backwards in a situation where there is a disordering effect continually taking place and arrive at a unique description of past conditions. The scientific method is not applicable when working back into the past where there were no observations.lxxv
Uniform process rates cannot exist in a universe where all natural processes
degenerate. Dr. Slusher goes on to completely invalidate uniformitarianism by
declaring:
Many data around the earth indicate that the rates of the processes operating in the past have been radically different from those of the
18
present. . . 'The present is the key to the past' statement, if referring to rates of activity, certainly has no scientific foundation.lxxvi
The present can never accurately describe the past due to the disordering effect of
the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
The theory of uniformitarianism rests on an old age for the earth. Lyell
acknowledged with the earlier geologists of his day that the short age of the earth
could not have produced the current surface of the earth by gradual change; this led
him to conclude the earth was extremely old.lxxvii Dr. Duane T. Gish, noted
creationist scientist, gives insight into Lyell's reasoning explaining that many millions
of years would be required to form the thick sediment deposits, hundreds of feet
thick, that dot the earths' surface hence, "the age of the earth as estimated by
evolutionary geologists began to increase at an astounding rate."lxxviii The extreme
age of the earth postulated by Lyell's theory was necessary for Darwin's theory of
evolution to be valid. Darwin admitted this dependency in his Origin of Species
when he stated anyone who read Lyell's Principles of Geology and "does not admit
how vast have been the past periods of time, may at once close this volume."lxxix
Darwin's evolution is based on Lyell's uniformitarianism which, in turn, depends on a
great age of the earth.
Since an old age for the earth is a direct prediction of uniformitarianism,
empirically determining the age of the earth would be an authoritative test of validity.
Men have always known the inner earth was hot. Moses declared that the Lord had
"set on fire the foundations of the mountains."lxxx Scientists of the later century
determined the age of the earth by determining the earth's cooling rate, estimating
19 its initial and current temperature and calculating how long it would have taken to
cool to the current temperature. William Thomson, more commonly known as Lord
Kelvin (for whom the Kelvin temperature scale is named), used this method in his
studies of the earth. Dr. Slusher relates that shortly after the theory of
uniformitarianism was published, Kelvin accused
the uniformitarians of having ignored the established laws of physics and as a result brought great mistakes into the ranks of geology. Kelvin supported his arguments by the thermodynamic laws . . . and the age of the earth based on its cooling.lxxxi
Dr. Slusher states "The cooling times [of the earth's interior] appear quite small
(thousands of years) if the initial temperature of the earth was on the order of that for
a habitable planet for any of the models."lxxxii As a worst case scenario, Dr. Slusher
uses the evolutionists model of an originally molten earth and still disproves
uniformitarianism by showing "the cooling times are vastly less than evolutionist
estimates."lxxxiii Dr. Slusher concludes by saying, "It would seem that the earth is
vastly younger than the "old" earth demanded by the evolutionists."lxxxiv
In this century, scientists have developed an alternate method of determining
the age of the earth called radiometric dating. This method, developed by
evolutionists, is used to date rocks and from them the age of the earth is
determined. The basis of radiometric dating, as described by staunch evolutionist
George Gaylord Simpson, is radioactive decay of isotopes of elements (called
parent elements) into another element (called daughter elements). The rate of
decay is expressed in a time unit known as the half-life. It is the time it takes one-
half of the parent element to decay into the daughter element.lxxxv There is a
uniformitarian based assumption, however, that the decay rates are constant.
20 Simpson stress "there is no reason to believe that these rates have changed in the
course of geologic time."lxxxvi Only rocks containing the radioactive isotopes used in
the dating process can be dated. The current amounts of the parent and daughter
elements is measured, but the initial amounts are assumed. The current rate of
decay is used to calculate how long it would have taken the initial estimated
amounts of the parent and daughter elements to decay into the current amounts.
Using these methods, geologists estimate the earth to be abut 4.5 billion years
old.lxxxvii
Dr. Slusher, in his critique of radiometric dating, cautions that the method is
based on "questionable" assumptions, the majority of which involve the beginning
amounts of the parent and daughter elements.lxxxviii Dr. Gish stresses these
assumptions are unverifiable and contain inherent "factors that assure that the ages
so derived, whether accurate or not, will always range in the millions to billions of
years."lxxxix The other assumption is that the decay rates have remained steady.
Recent research on rates of atomic processes has show this assumption may be
false.
For sixteen years, Dr. Thomas Van Flandern of the U.S. Naval Observatory
measured the atomic clock against the time it took the moon to complete an orbit of
the earth. Astronomers call time kept by the heavenly bodies dynamic time. Dr. Van
Flandern's results show that the atomic clock has slowed when compared to the
dynamical standard. The atomic clock uses the radioactive decay of Caesium to
measure time.xc The slowing of the atomic clock is only a symptom of a root cause.
The important issue is that all atomic process rates are slowing down. This is
21 another example of the Second Law of Thermodynamics at work. Creationist
researchers Trevor Norman and Barry Setterfield have written a technical paper on
atomic process rates. They ascertain that "all forms of dating by the atomic clock
are subject to the effect. This includes radiometric dating."xci Radiometric dating is
an unreliable indicator of the age of the earth because it is based on a uniformitarian
concept of atomic process rates which is contrary to the Second Law of
Thermodynamics.
Uniformitarianism provided the time necessary for the theory of evolution to
be plausible. With these two theories in place, the fossil record could be used as
proof of evolution. Simpson reflects that the establishment of paleontology, the
study of fossils, hinged upon the recognition that fossil rocks were deposited in an
ordered sequence and that this sequence displayed a change in the organisms in
the fossil record.xcii This vein of thinking quickly led the 19th century geologists to
formulate the idea of the geologic column. Since then, the geologic column has
joined with uniformitarianism in supporting the theory of evolution.
As defined by evolutionists, the geologic column is the arrangement of rock
strata, according to the sequence of the fossils they contain, from invertebrates, to
fish, amphibians, reptiles and finally mammals and representing the whole of
geologic time.xciii Lyell originally introduced this idea "that the successive groups of
sedimentary strata found in the earth's crust are . . . distinguishable from each other
by their organic remains."xciv Each rock strata has a different name and corresponds
to a certain period in geologic time. Using the principle of superposition, which says
lower strata levels are older than surface strata levels,xcv the geologic column is
22 considered "the main proof of evolution."xcvi
Far from being a generally occurring natural phenomena, the geologic column
is an artificial sequence of fossil deposits, designed to promote evolution, imposed
on the earth's rock strata. Although a prime teaching tool for evolutionists, the
geologic column is an idea only; it exists nowhere in nature.xcvii The Grand Canyon
is the best example of consecutive layers of exposed strata, yet it does not
represent the whole geologic column. Rather, the geologic column has been pieced
together from partially observed sequences.xcviii Creationists Richard Bliss, Gary
Parker and Duane Gish have done much work in the realm of fossils. They show
that "all real rock layers include gaps and even reversals from this perfect
sequence."xcix Lyell even admitted "that great violations of continuity in the
chronological series of fossiliferous rocks will always exist."c Darwin used the gaps
in the fossil record to account for the missing transitional forms that his theory of
evolution predicted, but were not observed in nature:
But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every striation full of such intermediate links? . . . The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfections of the geologic record.ci
The geologic column, as defined by evolutionists, is not a natural phenomenon and
hence can not be used as proof for the theory of evolution since all scientific proof
must rest on experimentally tested evidence.
Although the geologic column is an artificial construction formulated by
evolutionists, the fossil bearing sediment layers is a true geological observation.
23 Bliss, Parker and Gish, however, believe "it is an important idea, because it does
show a trend for rock layers or strata to be found in a vertical sequence."cii How can
they be explained outside the context of evolution? Dr. Morris reasons that
If evolutionary uniformitarianism is invalid as a framework for historical geology, there must be a better framework. If the orthodox Geological Time Scale is really based on circular reasoning and the assumption of evolution, then there must be a better explanation for the sedimentary rocks and their fossil sequences. The Biblical record of primeval earth history does, indeed, provide a far more effective model for correlating all the real data of geology, and the main key is the flood in the days of Noah, described in detail in Genesis chapters 6 through 9.ciii
Could the Genesis flood have produced the results seen today in the geologic
column? Based on observation alone, the geologic column is the arrangement of
rock strata as identified by their fossil contents. Hence, the origin of the fossils
determines the origin of the geologic column. Simpson says, "the word fossil, which
originally meant anything dug up, has come to mean just the remains and traces of
ancient organisms viewed as records of the history of life."civ Note the phrase
"viewed as records of the history of life" assumes evolution to be true! Bliss, Parker
and Gish give a more objective definition of a fossil as "the remains or traces of
plants and animals preserved in rock deposits."cv Fossils must be formed by a rapid
burial process otherwise they would quickly decay upon death. Heavy loads of
water-borne sediments, such as accompanies a flood, are good candidates for the
rapid burial process.cvi Dr. Gish concludes "the fossil record, rather than being a
record of transformations, is a record of mass destruction, death, and burial by water
and its contained sediments."cvii
The sequence of the fossil containing rock strata, the geologic column, is
24 foundational to both Lyell's uniformitarianism and Darwin's evolution. Although
evolutionists claim it demonstrates organic evolution, a careful examination reveals it
to be fragmentary, non-existent as a whole entity and often randomly ordered.cviii
Whitcomb and Morris declare these observations deal a death blow to the theory of
uniformity, but are "just what one would expect in the light of the Biblical record!"cix
In the tremendous movements of water that would occur as the flood waters abated,
sediments would be expected to be deposited depending on the landscape and
water current flow.cx A general pattern may be observed, but it would not be the
same worldwide. This is exactly what is observed. The geologic column is a
general pattern, but not an observed certainty, of the earth's strata deposits. The
theories of uniformitarianism and evolution are based on the ordering of the geologic
column. If the ordering is not constant in all observations, the theories fail.
Contrastingly, layered rock strata is one of several predicted outcomes of the flood.
Since the reality of the flood does not rest on this ordering, observations indicating
other order sequences do not affect the reality of the flood.
Lyell's theory of uniformitarianism, based on Hutton's idea that the present is
the key to the past, revolutionized geology and provided the foundation for Darwin's
forthcoming theory of evolution. Together these theories seemed to disprove the
basic Bible doctrines of Creation and the judgement of Noah's flood. In actuality,
they serve as examples of the surety of God's Word because they fulfill the
prophecy of the Apostle Peter.cxi Peter prophesied of the last days when the world
would be taken with these doctrines:
Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers,
25
walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. [uniformitarianism] For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, [creation] and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished. [flood]cxii
Evolution in Astronomy
An evolutionary view of the origin of life on earth invariably led to an
evolutionary view of the earth itself and eventually to the entire universe. Although
biological evolution has never been proven, cosmology, the science of the origin of
the universe, has grown tremendously in this century. George Gamow, professor of
theoretical physics, insists
we must reject the idea of a permanent unchangeable universe and must assume that the basic features which characterize the universe as we know it today are the direct result of some evolutionary development which must have begun a few billion years ago."cxiii
Cosmologists describe the universe as constantly developing and their model of
origins "presupposes that the universe can be completely explained . . . in terms of
natural laws and processes . . . without need of external preternatural
intervention."cxiv The two main cosmological theories of the origin of the universe
are the Big Bang and Steady State theories. Both these theories contradict the laws
of thermodynamics and defy the Biblical account of the origin of the universe.
The Big Bang theory assumes an expanding universe. In the early 1900's,
astronomers discovered that the spectral lines of distant spiral nebulae and galaxies
were shifted toward the red end of the spectrum. This shift toward the red is called
the Doppler shift or Doppler effect and usually indicates the object is moving away
26 from the observer.cxv It is comparable to the dying wail of a train whistle as the train
moves away from the station. The sound waves emitted from the train whistle are
being shifted toward the longer wavelengths as the train moves, thus producing the
wail. Similarly, light waves are shifted toward longer wavelengths as the galaxy
moves, thus producing the color of red. Based on observed Doppler shifts of distant
nebulae and galaxies, astronomers concluded these objects were moving away from
the earth. It was soon accepted that "the entire space of the universe, populated by
billions of galaxies, is in a state of rapid expansion, with all its members flying away
from one another at high speeds."cxvi The Big Bang theory was developed to explain
this expansion of the universe.
In general, evolutionist astronomers propose that the origin of the universe resulted from an explosion (the Big Bang) which formed a state of chaos. Evolutionary processes then began to act, supposedly bringing about a progression from disorder to order, or from chaos to a highly ordered, complex universe.cxvii
The Big Bang theory is scientifically unsound because it contradicts an
established law of science and it is based on an assumption concerning the nature
of light. First, it contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics. "The Second Law
of Thermodynamics argues that as a result of the explosion the entropy would
increase and there should be no ordered systems formed."cxviii Also, the speed of
light is assumed to have always been the same throughout time past. This is a
uniformitarian view of the universe as a whole. Interpreting the Red Shift of distant
galaxies as movement away from the observer is only valid if the speed of light has
remained constant. As discussed earlier, Dr. Van Flandern has shown
27 experimentally that the atomic clock has slowed compared to dynamical time.
Norman and Setterfield draw the astounding conclusion that
If atomic time is drifting against the dynamical standard, then other atomic quantities measured in dynamical time should also show the effect. . . One of the prime candidates is the speed of light. All light comes from atomic processes . . . If atomic processes were faster in the past, the speed of light would have been faster.cxix
If the speed of light, denoted by C, is actually decaying over time, then all of modern
cosmology rests on a false assumption. Norman and Setterfield describe the result
on cosmological thought
The reason for believing that the universe is expanding actually turns out to be evidence for a decay in the speed of light! As C decays, a red shift will consequently occur in light from distant objects. The further away those objects are, the more C has decayed and the greater will be the resultant red-shift. Far from indicating an expanding universe, the red-shift gives evidence for slowing C and atomic processes.cxx
Like the Big Bang theory, the Steady State theory, first proposed by Herman
Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Fred Hoyle, presupposes an expanding universe and
universal uniformitarianism. Their cosmological model says
Not only does the universe appear the same from any vantage point, it appears the same at all times - past, present, and future. The motion of the expansion of the universe is retained, but as galaxies move apart matter is spontaneously created to fill the void.cxxi
Gamow says that "while this point of view provides for the origin and evolution of
individual galaxies, it considers the universe itself as being eternal, though with a
constantly changing galactic population."cxxii There is no scientific evidence for this
theory. As the Big Bang theory contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics,
the Steady State theory contradicts the First. Dr. Slusher explains "this whole
28 concept is a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics. This law says that the
total amount of energy and the total amount of matter in the universe is a constant.
It would forbid the creation of energy out of nothing."cxxiii
British biologist and lifetime defender of Darwin, Sir Julian Huxley defined
evolution as "a single process of self-transformation."cxxiv Since natural
transformations require energy, the laws that govern energy transformations, the
laws of thermodynamics, must also govern evolution.cxxv These scientifically proven
laws have profound implications concerning origins.
The First Law (Law of Energy Conservation) states that nothing is now being "created" or destroyed. It therefore teaches quite conclusively that the universe did not create itself . . . The Second Law (Law of Energy Decay) states that every system left to its own devices always tends to move from order to disorder, its energy tending to be transformed into lower levels of availability, finally reaching the state of complete randomness and unavailability for further work.cxxvi
This final state of the universe is called a "heat death." Since the universe is not
dead yet, it is not eternal; it had a beginning.cxxvii Dr. Morris concludes "The Second
Law requires the universe to have had a beginning; the First Law precludes its
having begun itself. The only possible reconciliation of this problem is that the
universe was created by a Cause transcendent to itself."cxxviii
The creationist's position is that God created the universe ex nihilo (from
nothing). This stand is based on the authority of the Scriptures, not the facts of
science. As previously stated, Genesis 1:1 is the foundational verse of the Bible. It
is also the foundation of science. What did God call into existence that had not
existed before? The universe! The physical universe is composed of three
29 dimensions: space, mass, time. This phrase is popularly shortened to space-time.
The word "heaven" (Hebrew shamayim) has an essential meaning of "our modern
term space, such as when we speak of the universe as a universe of space and
time."cxxix Also, "in like manner the term "earth" refers to the component of matter in
the universe."cxxx Finally, this verse speaks of the creation of time since all this
occurs "in the beginning."cxxxi God is eternal and is outside of time. Viewed in this
way, God called the space-mass-time universe into existence in Genesis 1:1. The
universe is not eternal; it had a beginning. Nor did it begin itself. God created it "by
the word of his power."cxxxii
The laws of thermodynamics, which govern all processes in the universe,
forbid evolution from ever occurring. Although these two laws have been
experimentally tested and formulated, the purpose behind them can only be found in
God's word. The First Law says nothing can be created or destroyed. The reason
no energy can now be created is because the Creator "ended His work which He
had made."cxxxiii Also, the reason no energy can be destroyed is because the Lord
Jesus is presently "upholding all things by the word of His power."cxxxiv The Second
Law says all processes move from order to disorder. It is a law of universal decay.
When God finished His creation, He pronounced it "very good."cxxxv The laws of
conservation were built into the original created universe, but the law of decay could
not have been part of an original good creation. As the First Law provided for the
conservation of energy, the Second Law provided for the conservation of entropy.
Now, however, the Second Law shows entropy is constantly increasing. Something
happened after the original creation to cause this change. "The Biblical answer is
30 Man's sin and God's curse."cxxxvi When Adam choose to disobey God, he brought
death into the world. The curse God placed upon Adam and Eve in Genesis chapter
three is the Second Law as it is known today. "Man had brought spiritual disorder
into his own dominion; God appropriately imposed a principle of physical disorder on
that dominion as befitting its spiritual condition."cxxxvii
Both the Scriptures and science point to God as the Creator of all things. The
theories of evolution and uniformitarianism, as formulated by Darwin and Lyell, have
no scientific basis and blatantly defy the teachings of the Bible. Those who hold to
these theories do so out of rebellion against God instead of any superior scientific
reasoning. God describes them perfectly in His word:
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.cxxxviii
31
NOTES
i Psalm 33:6
ii Jonathan Miller, Darwin for Beginners (New York: Pantheon Books, 1982), 26.
iii Ibid., 27.
iv Ibid., 49.
v Benjamin Farrington, What Darwin Really Said (London: Macdonald, 1966), 62.
vi Ibid., 63.
vii Ibid., 63.
viii Ibid., 63.
ix Ibid., 63.
x Frederick Wollaston Hutton, Darwinism and Lamarckism (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1899), 38-39.
xi Henry M. Morris, Scientific Creationism 2nd ed. (El Cajon, California: Master Books, 1985), 92.
xii Barry G. Gale, Evolution Without Evidence (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1982), 38.
xiii Ibid., 38-39.
xiv Leo F. Laporte, Evolution and the Fossil Record (San Francisco: Wilt Freeman and Company, 1978), 4.
xv Ibid., 5.
xvi Frank L. Marsh, Variation and Fixity in Nature (Mountain View, California: Pacific Press Publishing Assoc., 1976), 19.
xvii Ibid., 20.
xviii Ibid.
xix Ibid.
xx Ibid.
32
xxi Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species
(New York: Columbia University Press, 1942), 147.
xxii Ibid.
xxiii Alister Hardy, Darwin and the Spirit of Man (London: Collins, 1984), 83.
xxiv Marsh, 26.
xxv Ibid.
xxvi Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Record (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976), 63.
xxvii Marsh, 36.
xxviii Ibid.
xxix Marsh, 37.
xxx Ibid., 32.
xxxi Ibid.
xxxii Marsh, 33.
xxxiii Mayr, 67.
xxxiv Ibid, 187.
xxxv Ibid.
xxxvi Theodosius Dobzhansky, Genetics of the Evolutionary Procsess (New York: Columbia University Press, 1970), 41.
xxxvii Ibid., 65.
xxxviii Ibid.
xxxix Morris, Scientific Creationism, 54.
xl Farrington, 68.
xli Ibid., 69.
xlii Dobzhansky, 30.
xliii Ibid., 43-44.
33
xliv Morris, The Genesis Record, 63.
xlv Dobzhansky, 92.
xlvi Ibid., 65.
xlvii Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species 6th ed. (London: Watts & Co., 1929), 59.
xlviii Ibid., 92.
xlix Miller, 112-114.
l Farrington, 72.
li Ibid.
lii Darwin, 92.
liii Hutton, 67.
liv Morris, Scientific Creationism, 25.
lv Ibid, 43-44.
lvi Ibid., 45.
lvii Ex. 20:11
lviii Morris, The Genesis Record, 38.
lix Ex. 3:14
lx Psalm 14:1
lxi Morris, The Genesis Record, 40.
lxii Heb. 11:3
lxiii Gen. 1:27
lxiv Rom. 5:12
lxv Gen. 3:19
lxvi Darwin, 131.
lxvii Ibid.
34
lxviii David L Clark, Fossils, Paleontology, and Evolution 2nd ed. (Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Company Publishers, 1976), 5.
lxix Ibid., 4.
lxx Henry M. Morris, The Biblical Basis for Modern Science (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), 303. Emphasis is his.
lxxi George Lyell, Principles of Geology, 2 vols. (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1887), 1:318.
lxxii Ibid.
lxxiii Ibid., 304-305.
lxxiv Ibid., 305.
lxxv Harold S. Slusher, Critique of Radiometric Dating 2nd ed. (San Diego: Institute for Creation Research, 1981), 2.
lxxvi Ibid.
lxxvii Lyell, 317.
lxxviii Duane T. Gish, Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record (El Cajon, California: Creation-Life Publishers, 1986), 47.
lxxix Darwin, 253.
lxxx Deut. 32:32
lxxxi Thomas P. Gamwell and Harold S. Slusher, Age of the Earth (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1978), 6.
lxxxii Ibid., 87.
lxxxiii Ibid., 87-88.
lxxxiv Ibid., 88.
lxxxv George Gaylord Simpson, Fossils and the History of Life (New York: Scientific American Books, Inc., 1983), 67-68.
lxxxvi Ibid., 68.
35
lxxxvii Gish, 47.
lxxxviii Slusher, Critique of Radiometric Dating, 53.
lxxxix Gish, 51.
xc Trevor Norman and Barry Setterfield, The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time (Menlo Park, California: Stanford Research Institute International, 1987), 79-80.
xci Ibid., 85.
xcii Simpson, 58.
xciii Gish, 47.
xciv Lyell, 303.
xcv Simpson, 62-63.
xcvi Morris, Scientific Creationism, 120.
xcvii Richard B. Bliss et al., Fossils: Key to the Present (El Cajon, California: Creation-Life Publishers, 1980), 13-14.
xcviii Simpson, 63-65.
xcix Bliss et al., 14.
c Lyell, 313.
ci Darwin, 251.
cii Bliss et al., 14.
ciii Morris, Biblical Basis for Modern Science, 312-313.
civ Simpson, 9.
cv Bliss et al., 4.
36
cvi Ibid., 6.
cvii Gish, 50.
cviii Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb, The Genesis Flood (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1961), 271-272.
cix Ibid., 272.
cx Ibid.
cxi Ibid., 451-453.
cxii 1 Pet. 3:3-6 Emphasis mine.
cxiii George Gamow, The Creation of the Universe (New York: The Viking Press, 1952), 20.
cxiv Morris, Scientific Creationism, 17.
cxv Gamow, 23.
cxvi Ibid.
cxvii Harold S. Slusher, The Origin of the Universe (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1980), 2.
cxviii Ibid., 34.
cxix Norman and Setterfield, 80.
cxx Ibid., 85.
cxxi Slusher, Origin of the Universe, 43.
cxxii Gamow, 32.
37
cxxiii Slusher, Origin of the Universe, 46.
cxxiv Emmett L. Williams, "Thermodynamics and Evolution: A Creationist View," in Thermodynamics and the Development of Order, ed. Emmett L. Williams (n.p.: Creation Research Society, 1981), 10.
cxxv Ibid.
cxxvi Morris, Scientific Creationism, 25.
cxxvii Ibid.
cxxviii Ibid., 26.
cxxix Morris, The Genesis Record, 40.
cxxx Ibid., 41.
cxxxi Ibid.
cxxxii Psalm 33:6
cxxxiii Gen. 2:2
cxxxiv Heb. 1:3
cxxxv Gen. 1:31
cxxxvi Henry M. Morris, "Thermodynamics and Biblical Theology," in Thermodynamics and the Development of Order, ed. Emmett L. Williams (n.p.: Creation Research Society, 1981), 129.
130 Ibid., 130.
cxxxviii Rom. 1:20-22
BIBLIOGRAPHY
The Bible. King James Version. Bliss, Richard B. et al. Fossils: Key to the Present. El Cajon, California: Creation-Life Publishers, 1980.
38 Clark, David L. Fossils, Paleontology, and Evolution. 2nd ed. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Company, 1976. Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. 6th ed. London: Watts & Co., 1929. Dobzhansky, Theodosius. Genetics of the Evolutionary Process. New York: Columbia University Press, 1970. Farrington, Benjamin. What Darwin Really Said. London: MacDonald, 1966. Gale, Barry G. Evolution Without Evidence. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1982. Gamow, George. The Creation of the Universe. New York: The Viking Press, 1952. Gamwell, Thomas P. and Slusher, Harold S. Age of the Earth. El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1978. Gish, Duane T. Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record. El Cajon, California: Creation-Life Publishers, 1986. Hardy, Alister Clavering, Sir. Darwin and the Spirit of Man. London: Collins, 1984. Hutton, Frederick Wollaston. Darwinism and Lamarckism. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1899. Laporte, Leo F. Evolution and the Fossil Record. San Francisco: Walt Freeman and Company, 1978. Lyell, George. Principles of Geology. 2 vols. New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1887. Marsh, Frank L. Variation and Fixity in Nature. Mountain View, California: Pacific Press Publishing Assoc., 1976. Mayr, Ernst. Systematics and the Origin of Species. New York: Columbia University Press, 1942. Miller, Jonathan. Darwin for Beginners. New York: Pantheon Books, 1982. Morris, Henry M. The Biblical Basis for Modern Science. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984. ---. The Genesis Record. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
39 1976. ---. Scientific Creationism. 2nd ed. El Cajon, California: Master Books, 1985. ---. "Thermodynamics and Biblical Theology." In Thermodynamics and the Development of Order Ed. Emmett L. Williams. n.p.: Creation Research Society, 1981. Morris, Henry M. and Whitcomb, John C. The Genesis Flood. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, Co., 1961. Norman, Trevor and Setterfield, Barry. The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time. Menlo Park, California: Stanford Research Institute International, 1987. Simpson, George Gaylord. Fossils and the History of Life. New York: Scientific American Books, Inc., 1983. Slusher, Harold S. Critique of Radiometric Dating. 2nd ed. San Diego: Institute for Creation Research, 1981. ---. The Orgin of the Universe. El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1980. Williams, Emmett L. "Thermodynamics and Evolution: A Creationist View." In Thermodynamics and the Development of Order. Ed. Emmett L. Williams. n.p.: Creation Research Society, 1981.